Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Why Should WAPO's Eugene Robinson Care, Its Only A Few Million Dead Jews

According to the latest passive/aggressive tome by Washington Post Columnist Eugene Robinson Binyamin Netanyahu's speech wasn't as bad as he thought it would be. He examined some of the Israeli Premier's prose from the standpoint of the progressive advocate he is while ignoring the most important part of Netanyahu's argument, based on the deal being negotiated millions of people would be placed in danger. 

Robinson starts his piece by insulting Elie Wiesel describing him as a pawn who was taken advantage of by the evil Netanyahu:
The worst moment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, at least for me, came when he used Elie Wiesel, a great moral hero, as a Hollywood-style prop. Presidents giving State of the Union addresses have the right to tug at our heartstrings by saluting honored guests in the gallery. Foreign leaders taking advantage of partisan invitations do not.
 Hollywood style prop? I guess that's okay when President Obama handed out lab coats to the people in attendance when he was selling Obamacare, or the other countless times his progressive leader has shamelessly used people as props. 

Except this time it wasn't a prop. Elie Wiesel is a moral hero because he was able to explain to the world the horrors of the Holocaust and why mankind should never allow anything like that again.   Wiesel attended the speech for the same reason. He supported Netanyahu's speech because like the Prime Minister he knows that Iran is trying to embark on a new genocide of the Jewish people, first the ones in Israel, then in the US, along with all the other citizens of the Great Satan.

What Robinson doesn't understand is that even a great moral hero like Elie Wiesel can believe that President Obama can be wrong. It's hard for a non-Jew to understand two thousand years of the Jewish experience, but one thing we learned is that we can't totally rely on others for our protection--- Wiesel wasn't a there as prop he was a supporter.

As to the charge of "partisanship" if the columnist got his head out of the Obama Administration talking points he would have realized that the Prime Minister's speech wasn't partisan until the Obama administration fearful of a dissenting opinion made it partisan.  Perhaps he could even read one of the many reports since Tuesday such as this one by Michael Barone indicating that most members of Congress of both parties agree with Netanyahu. The fact is it was the partisanship came from Administration commandments.

The theme of Robinson's column can be explained with this concluding paragraph:
Netanyahu was full of bluster — perhaps mostly for the voters back home, who go to the polls later this month — but there were nuggets of realism. I hope Congress actually listened.
Putting aside the columnists use of the Administration-created slander that the trip to congress was only made because of the upcoming Israeli election, what the columnist called bluster was the sense of urgency of a leader whose nation was in danger and perhaps a sense of desperation because his nation was being treated like pre-WWII Czechoslovakia being sold out for a President's legacy.

While picking out what he believed was bluster interspersed with his party's talking points, Eugene Robinson missed the most important part of Netanyahu's speech--the real reason he was in Washington.
My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. 
When Elie Wiesel and millions of other Jews were suffering through the horrors of Nazi Germany, indeed through two thousand years of blood libels, crusades, inquisitions, etc. no one rose to speak out, even FDR and Churchill refused to allow Jews sanctuary from the Nazis. That was behind Netanyahu's speech, that was his message to congress. Will the United States allow Iran to get nuclear weapons today or in ten years causing millions of Jews to be murdered, or will they allow a presidential desire for a political legacy to overshadow the danger the same way it has been done for two thousand years.

Eugene Robinson made his choice, he ignores a genuine concern calling it bluster, instead he sides with a plan which puts off the genocide for ten years not because of its efficacy, but because as a loyal progressive support for his leader comes first.  And in the end does it really matter, it's only a few million dead Jews.

Sen.Sessions-EPA Head Can't Answer Basic Climate Questions (Next Time Invite Me To Testify)

I am not a client scientist and global warming enthusiast enjoy pointing that out whenever they try to skewer a post which calls into question their precious climate change hypothesis. But now I can respond that I know facts about climate change off the top of my head that EPA Director Gina McCarthy doesn't know.

Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy discussed some climate  change facts during yesterday's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. Session asked McCarthy about droughts, hurricanes and the figures used to show climate change and the EPA head was clueless.
Sessions:  Let me ask you this. There was an article from Mr. [Bjorn] Lomborg … from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?”

McCarthy: “I don’t know in what context he’s making statements like that, but I can certainly tell you about the droughts are happening today.”

Sessions: “I’m asking you what what other data you know about … world-wide data about whether we are having fewer or less droughts?”

McCarthy: “I’d be happy to provide it, but I certainly am aware that droughts are becoming more extreme and frequent.”

Sessions: “Are you aware that the IPCC has found that moisture content of the soil is, if anything, slightly greater than it has been over the last decade. It’s in their report, are you aware of that?

McCarthy: “I don’t know what you’re referring to, senator, but I’m happy to respond …”

Sessions: “Well you need to know because you’re asking this economy to sustain tremendous costs and you don’t know whether the soil worldwide is more moist or less moist.” 
Here's what McCarthy supposedly didn't know about :
"It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In May of 2014 Professor Pielke published a graph that shows the intensity of the planet's droughts from 1982 to 2012. The graph shows that neither droughts nor their intensity have seen a growth trend during that 30-year period.

Seems pretty clear cut to me even though I am not an expert like the head of the EPA.

Sessions pressed McCarthy on hurricanes something the warming enthusiasts love to talk about.
Sessions: “What about hurricanes. Have we had more or less hurricanes in the last decade?”
McCarthy: “In terms of landing those hurricanes on land, I cannot answer that question. It’s a very complicated issue.”
Sessions: “It’s not complicated on how many have landed. We’ve had a dramatic reduction in the number. We’ve gone a decade without a hurricane [Category] 3 or above.
A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:

We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.
 And then there is the veracity of climate models.
Sessions: Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperature has been very little, and that it is well below, matter of fact 90 percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?”
McCarthy: “I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to …”
Sessions: “This is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency — who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase — doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”
There is plenty of information about the climate models for example a recent study reported that climate models have over-stated the last 55 years of global warming. Some scientists have even suggested that climate models are worthless.

So it's obvious that I know more about the climate than the EPA head.  Senator Sessions, next time you want to have a hearing, invite me--I have the information you are looking for---the EPA's McCarthy knows nothing (but if you invite me I expect cookies).

Watch the full exchange on the video below (H/T

Hillary's State Dept. Forced Out US Ambassador To Kenya For Using Private Email

Approximately eight months before Hillary Clinton left Foggy Bottom U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration resigned because of a scathing report by the State Department’s Inspector General’s office.

According to Josh Rogan who wrote about the resignation in Foreign Policy at the time
"But Gration’s independent streak and insistence on doing things his own way, outside of the interagency policy process, ran afoul of the embassy staff in Nairobi almost immediately. Multiple sources familiar with the disputes confirmed reports Friday that Gration preferred to use his Gmail account for official business and set up private offices in his residence — and an embassy bathroom — to conduct business outside the purview of the embassy staff."
Indeed the bottom of page 43 of the Inspector General's critical report begins:
Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards.
Now if the Ambassador to Kenya got an awful performance report which forced him to resign, logic dictates that the Secretary of State would know about it even before the ambassador found out. And unless that Secretary of State was mentally challenged, she would realize that while she wasn't using email, she was using a private system which didn't "provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required" and that she didn't "adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards."

Ms. Clinton has some explaining to do. 

(H/T: Weekly Standard)

Hillary's Fake Email Transparency Obscures Her Lack Of Regard for National Security

It was Hillary Clinton sounding like she was being magnanimous. Late Wednesday night she announced her request to the State Department to disclose all of the emails she sent them from her term as Secretary of State.
Isn't she wonderful. Isn't this a much different Hillary Clinton, allowing the public to see all the emails that she, along with her advisers decided to give the State Department?

Actually it wasn't her decision.  Clinton provided the 55,000 emails after the State Department asked them, and we are not sure of which emails she didn't give. But the Democrats are rushing to praise their only choice for 2016. For example ABC commentator Donna Brazile.

Of course being the party first type, Brazile ignores the fact that the partisan filter happened before  the emails were released to the State Department.

And there is really nothing magnanimous about Hillary releasing her emails. Those realeased other may never see the light of day are not her property they are the property of the American people. The Federal Records Act  states clearly that all department heads (including the Secretary of State). “shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”

As a former First Lady and a Secretary of State the federal records act should not be a surprise, especially after her friend and former National Security Adviser for her husband Sandy Berger was caught stuffing confidential documents down his pants trying to steal them from National Archives (Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal of federal documents).

There is a bigger issue in this latest of Clinton scandals. Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt (and that's a HUGE benefit). Let's assume for a moment that she didn't set up the personal email server in her house explicitly for being able to control what get's release, lets also assume that the 55K emails she turned over were all of them, that she held nothing back and nothing was erased. Of course you would have to believe that unicorns exist also--but bear with me.

The bigger issue is national security. Here was the Secretary of State using a private server without the same protections as a government server to send her sometimes sensitive communications.  Any good hacker could have gotten into her emails. Heck if they knew about Hilliary's lack of protection, North Korea might have ignored Sony and gone into her emails.

This means Clinton have very little regard for national security or at least she had a much higher regard for being able to control her political message than she had for national security.

Should someone with such a lack of regard for national security even be considered for the office of President?

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Video From 2007-When Hillary Slammed Bush WH For Using Private Emails

The video below was played Wednesday on Greta Van Susteren's On The Record show. It shows part of a Hillary Clinton campaign speech from June 20th 2007 where Ms Clinton blasts the Bush White House, saying its use of secret emails was an example of the Administration shredding the constitution.
Our constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about the secret military tribunals. The secret White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption of cronyism run amuck. It is everything our founders were afraid of. Everything our constitution was designed to prevent.